scholarly journals On violation of the logic of the legal mechanism of bringing to justice for beatings and additional measures for their prevention

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (3) ◽  
pp. 178-185
Author(s):  
Aleksey Drozd ◽  
Aleksandr Ravnyushkin
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Public Prosecution ◽  
Protective Orders ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Mechanism

The relevance of the research is determined by a legal gap in the current legislation, which lies in the fact that when bringing a person who has committed a crime under Article 116.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation repeatedly in relation to the same person to responsibility, the state of the criminal record of this criminal is not taken into account. In this case, a person who has unexpunged or outstanding convictions, when committing battery for the third time, according to common sense, should be brought to criminal responsibility, and not to administrative responsibility, as is currently the case. In order to eliminate this conflict, the authors propose to include part 2 of Art. 1161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for the liability of a person who has an unexpunged or outstanding conviction in relation to the same person. At the same time, the authors consider it necessary to include a group of criminal cases considered as cases of public prosecution to part 2 of Art. 1161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors also see an urgent problem of the need to improve the effectiveness of the prevention of domestic violence through the inclusion of new legal means in legislation and law enforcement practice. Attempts to implement the norms of international acts providing for legal means of preventing domestic violence in the Russian Federation, as well as the study of foreign experience on this issue, according to the authors, looks ambiguous and is debatable. In particular, the issue of introducing protective orders and orders as administrative and legal means of preventing administrative offenses through the adoption of the federal law «On the Prevention of Domestic Violence in the Russian Federation» is being considered. According to the authors, taking into account the foreign practice, there are sufficient grounds to believe that protective prescriptions and some other means will not be able to confirm their effectiveness in Russia.

Signs characterizing the person occupying the highest position in criminal hierarchy

2020 ◽  
pp. 75-80
Author(s):  
Александр Викторович Сенатов
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Organized Crime ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Legislation

В связи с изменениями, внесенными Федеральным законом Российской Федерации от 01.04.2019 № 46-ФЗ «О внесении изменений в Уголовный кодекс Российской Федерации и Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Российской Федерации в части противодействия организованной преступности» в уголовном законодательстве появилась ст. 210, предусматривающая уголовную ответственность за занятие высшего положения в преступной иерархии. Данное преступление имеет специальный субъект, обладающий дополнительными признаками, которые должны быть закреплены в законе. Однако в уголовном законодательстве, а также постановлениях Пленума Верховного суда Российской Федерации отсутствует определение данного понятия, а также признаки, в соответствии с которыми необходимо привлечь лицо к уголовной ответственности. В статье проанализированы научные определения «преступная иерархия», «иерархическая лестница уголовно-преступной среды», лицо, занимающее высшее положение в преступной иерархии, а также выделены конкретные признаки, характеризующие специальный субъект, закрепленный ст. 210 УК РФ. Рассматривается опыт борьбы с организованной преступностью в Республике Грузия, а также материалы следственной практики в отношении лица, привлекаемого к уголовной ответственности по признакам состава преступления, предусмотренного ст. 210 УК РФ. Due to the changes made by the Federal law of the Russian Federation of 01.04.2009 No. 46-FZ “On modification of the criminal code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation regarding counteraction of organized crime” to the criminal legislation there was Art. 210 providing criminal liability for occupation of the highest position in criminal hierarchy. This crime has a special subject with additional features that must be enshrined in the law. However, in the criminal legislation, as well as the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme court of the Russian Federation, there is no definition of this concept, as well as signs according to which it is necessary to bring a person to criminal responsibility. The article analyzes the scientific definitions of “criminal hierarchy”, “hierarchical ladder of criminal environment”, the person occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy, as well as the specific features, fixed Art. 210 of the Criminal Code. The article also discusses the experience of combating organized crime in the Republic of Georgia, as well as materials of investigative practice in relation to a person brought to criminal responsibility on the grounds of a crime under Art. 210 of the Criminal Code.

scholarly journals Interpretation of certain aspects of criminal restriction of competition

2021 ◽  
pp. 48-58
Author(s):  
Ol'ga Evgen'evna Derevyagina
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Tax Legislation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The subject of this research is the norms of antimonopoly legislation aimed at prevention and suppression of cartels, the norms of tax legislation that define the income and establish special tax regime for professional income, the norms of the Chapter 22 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the draft federal law on amendments to the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and practical implementation of the Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The goal of this research is to examine the concept of income derived by the cartel; establish whether self-employed citizens can be the subject of an offence under this category, and clarify the criminal responsibility of the parties to the cartel agreement. The novelty consists in the fact that this article is first to examine the question of attributing the individuals conducting business activity under the special “Professional Income Tax” regime (self-employed citizens) to economic entities (i.e., parties to the cartel agreement). The effective legislation indicates that self-employed citizens do not belong to this group, as they are not state registered. A substantiation is made that a conscious neglect or an indifference to such socially dangerous consequence as income unfeasible: the cartel agreement is aimed at derivation of sizeable income. A consciously indifferent attitude is possible only towards such socially dangerous consequence as infliction of considerable damage. The field of application of acquired results is the activity of law enforcement agencies.

THE PROBLEMS OF LEGAL REGULATION OF THE USE OF METAL DETECTORS FOR PURPOSES NOT RELATED TO THE SEARCH FOR AND REMOVAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTS FROM PLACES OF OCCURRENCE

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 92-109
Author(s):  
Anatoly N. PANFILOV
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Illegal Activities ◽  
Metal Detectors ◽  
Archaeological Objects

The scale of illegal archaeological activity in modern Russia is a cause for alarm among scientists, interested specialists and citizens. This problem is exacerbated by the mass enthusiasm of the population of the country by searching for antique metal objects using metal detectors and other special technical search tools. The Federal Law of July 23, 2013 No. 245-ФЗ On Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Regarding the Suppression of Illegal Activities in the Field of Archeology was sent to solve the problem. However, these steps did not produce any tangible results. The evolving judicial practice in administrative and criminal cases (Article 7.15.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, Article 243.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) raises many questions among specialists in the field of law. The article examines the problems of legal regulation of the use in the Russian Federation of special technical means of search for purposes not related to the search and seizure of archaeological objects. The author, relying on wide empirical material, identifies circumstances that impede metalworking, justifies the need for further streamlining of these social relations by adjusting national legislation. The study is interdisciplinary in nature, as the studied problem is at the junction of several branches of law: civil, administrative and criminal. The research methodology is determined by the specifics of the problem being studied and includes a set of methods of scientific knowledge. General scientific (analysis, synthesis, generalization, historical) and private scientific (historical-legal, comparative-legal, formal-legal) research methods are applied.

scholarly journals HOLDING THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE CRIMINAL HIERARCHY: CRIMINAL LAW ASPECT

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (3(65)) ◽  
pp. 108-120
Author(s):  
Валерий Анатольевич НОВИКОВ
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation

The paper discusses the most pressing issues of criminal responsibility for holding the highest position in the criminal hierarchy. Liability for such an act was introduced by Federal Law No. 46-FZ of April 1, 2019 by supplementing the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with Article 210¹. In order to characterize the constituent elements of this crime, the legislator used the concepts of «criminal hierarchy» and «the highest position in the criminal hierarchy» that are not defined in the current normative legal acts, which makes it difficult to apply the considered criminal law norm. Some scientific publications note that the introduction of criminal liability for a person occupying the highest position in the criminal hierarchy is not in agreement with Article 8 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which, as the sole basis of responsibility, specifies a socially dangerous act containing all the elements of a crime and not the status of a person in the criminal world. Purpose: based on modern scientific concepts and judicial practice, a comparative study of national legislation with similar legal provisions of other states, to interpret the concepts in question and, on that basis, to define the range of socially dangerous acts, which may be incriminated against a person prosecuted under Article 210¹ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Methods: methods of analysis and synthesis, generalization, comparative legal, formal logical, legal dogmatic and other methods of scientific knowledge are used. Results: on the basis of the study, the author concludes that not the status of a criminal leader itself, but the administrative activity due to the highest position in the criminal environment to streamline organized crime in freedom and in places of execution of punishments constitutes grounds for responsibility under Article 210¹ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. There is also an indicative list of persons to be considered as perpetrators of offences under Part 4 of Article 210 and Article 210¹ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals On the Criminal Policy Concerning Juvenile Crime in Modern Russia

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 687-698
Author(s):  
Salman Dikaev ◽  
Milana Dikaeva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The State ◽  
Juvenile Crime ◽  
Child Rearing ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Russian Federation

The attitude of the state towards underage criminals has considerably changed in the last decade, which is evident from the adoption of new normative legal acts determining the direction of state criminal policy concerning children. Thus, the Decree of the President of Russia declared 2018-2027 to be the Decade of Childhood, whose scope includes a comprehensive program of preventing underage crimes, the use of restorative techniques and methods of preventive work with children and their parents, etc. Sentencing practices and exemption from punishment have also been revised. The courts have started to apply criminal law measures more widely, to terminate criminal cases, exempt minors from criminal liability and punishment, and to use reconciliation programs. This lead to the reduction of both the number of young offenders institutions and the number of their inmates. At the same time, there is a trend for a harsher response of the state to some crimes of minors, which shows that the trend for the humanization of criminal policy concerning them is unstable. Widening the list of Articles included in Art. 20 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, for which the age of responsibility is 14, development of draft laws providing for the reduction of the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years for very grave crimes by the State Dumas Committee for the Development of Civil Society, and others, testify to the inconsistency of lawmaking work and the absence of adequate understanding of the essence of juvenile crime. The authors show that it is necessary to widen the application of double prevention norms: it is suggested that in each case of juvenile crime it is reasonable to raise the question of prosecuting parents for non-fulfillment or undue fulfillment of child-rearing obligations when there are grounds for such prosecution (Art. 156 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). It is also recommended to widen the application of norms of liability for involving minors in crimes and other anti-social actions.

scholarly journals Crime Subject Under Clause “a” Part 3 Article 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: 16 or 18 Years?

Narkokontrol ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 8-10
Author(s):  
Elena G. Bykova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The Russian Federation

Purpose: legal analysis of theoretical and practical aspects of determining the age of criminal responsibility for inducing a person under the age of 18 to use narcotic drugs. Methodology: the fundamental method was dialectical. When studying the regulations governing the issues of bringing minors to justice, the formal legal method was used. The hypothesis about the correctness of the wording of paragraph «a» of Part 3 of Art. 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Analyzed judicial practice and scientific publications on the issue under study. Conclusions: the author concluded that the absence of a legislative limitation makes it possible to assess according to paragraph «a» of Part 3 of Art. 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation actions of a person aged sixteen to eighteen years. Scientific and practical significance: the scientific significance of the research is expressed in the development of scientifically grounded proposals containing the answer to the question about the age of the person involved in paragraph «a» of Part 3 of Art. 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The noted problem can be further disclosed in detail in scientific research. Practical significance is determined by the fact that the conclusion reasoned by the author can serve as a guideline in the investigation and consideration of criminal cases under paragraph «a» of Part 3 of Art. 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the formation of a unified approach.

scholarly journals Problems of the Criminal Prosecution of Persons Who Committed Actions Constitution Implication in a Crime

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 352-360
Author(s):  
Larisa Gotchina ◽  
Marina Dvorzhitskaya
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Investigation ◽  
Minimum Age ◽  
The Russian Federation

The paper discusses highly latent actions constituting implication in a crime. The goal of this study is to identify the problems of criminally prosecuting persons who committed actions constituting implication in a crime, to qualify them and to develop recommendations for their elimination. Formal legal and comparative legal methods were used to obtain and process results relevant for the research, the statistical method was used to collect and analyze data on the examined crimes, and the sociolo­gical one — to conduct a survey of experts. An analysis of criminal cases made it possible to state that the problem of criminally prosecuting persons who committed actions constituting implication in a crime is connected with the problems of their qualification, and with widening the institute of implication through failure to report a crime; this action is included in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the topical issues of terrorism threat, a growing number of terrorist crimes and the necessity to protect the society from them. The authors believe that it is reasonable to recognize 16 years old as the minimum age of criminal responsibility for failure to report a crime. It is proven that the criminal character of implication in a crime could be based not only on the guilty verdict for the main case, but also on other procedural acts. It is concluded that implication in a socially dangerous act is possible for a person who does not possess the attribute of a subject of a crime due to his/her mental incompetence, and is also possible for a crime committed in complicity. It is stated that concealment of a crime is constituted by actions to conceal the event of the main crime, its traces, the objects obtained through criminal means, or the person who committed the main crime. It can be committed not only through physical, but also through intellectual actions. The authors suggest differentiating between criminal liability for the concealment of grave and especially grave crimes. The analysis of judicial investigation practice made it possible to identify typical models of qualifying actions constituting implication in a crime, as well as psychological, moral, criminological and criminal law features of a person who conceals a crime or fails to report it. Based on the authors’ position, a formulation of the decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation «On some issues of implication in a crime» is suggested.

scholarly journals The Establishment of Criminal Responsibility for Retail Sale of Alcoholic Products to Minors: An Analysis of the Feasibility

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 150-158
Author(s):  
K. V. Dyadyun
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Retail Trade ◽  
Retail Sale ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The paper analyzes the objective and subjective features of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The problems of interpretation and application of this norm are investigated, taking into account the goals and objectives underlying its creation. Special legislation regulating the sphere under study is considered. The studied imperfections of regulation of the subject of the crime (the relationship between the concepts of alcoholic and alcohol-containing products), problems of distinguishing acts from related compounds (article 151 of the Criminal Code), the complexity of the classification. The analysis of crime-forming features is presented: "repeatability", "retail", and "sale". Imperfections of the legislative and law enforcement approach in this aspect are revealed. In particular, the key features and correlation of the concepts of wholesale and retail trade are analyzed; the problems of assessing what was done with remote methods of selling alcohol; the content aspects of the categories "duplicity and repetition" in the context under study. The question of the expediency of replacing the term "sale" with "illegal sale" in the disposition of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is studied. The regulation of features of the subject of the studied elements is considered, and existing problems are identified. The question of the expediency of norms with administrative prejudice in the criminal law was raised. Some problematic aspects of sentencing for retail sale of alcoholic products to minors are identified; and issues of establishing the subjective side of the elements. The paper analyzes the opinions of various authors regarding the possibility of improving the norm of article 151.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the study of statistical data and materials of judicial practice. The author indicates the need for an integrated approach in the fight against alcohol abuse among young people. The conclusion is presented regarding the validity of the existence of the studied norm in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the current version.

scholarly journals Novels of the Criminal Code on responsibility for abusesin public procurement: background and problems of qualification

2018 ◽  
pp. 34-43
Author(s):  
A. Ya. Asnis
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Service Contract ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Contract Managers

The article deals with the criminological grounds and background of the adoption of the Federal law of April 23, 2018 № 99-FZ, which introduced criminal liability for abuse in the procurement of goods, works and services for state or municipal needs (Art. 2004 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and for bribery of employees of contract service, contract managers, members of the Commission on the implementation of the procurement of persons engaged in the acceptance of the delivered goods, performed works or rendered services, other authorized persons, representing interests of customer in the scope of the relevant procurement (Art. 2005 of the Criminal Code).The author formulates private rules of qualification of the corresponding crimes and differentiation of their structures from structures of adjacent crimes and administrative offenses. The necessity of changing the position of the legislator regarding generic and direct objects of these crimes, the adoption of a special resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to explain the practice of applying the relevant innovations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document